[rise@shine]

looks very similar to a job i do and you can reach that without any extra sections on. But sometimes like you say pictures are deceiving

[RK Cleaning Services]

Thats high go on how much water did you use?

[Rob.Hall]

That pole is impresive as the bend is minimal to some I have seen.

How do you clean the top of the windows at that hight. Can you go from side to side ok?

[richywilts]

how do you rinse at these heights i presume on the window does this effect the finished result?

[karlosdaze]

It just doesn't look like 72' more like 50'?

count the base sections these show up on photo with a white part on this is the gardner name , the pictures have 5 base sections on making it 62feet plus reach height so thats 66 or 67 feet, on the other side of building not photograhed i needed 6 base sections making it between 72 and 74 feet high, admittedly the picture doesnt look as high as it did in reality.

Gardiners quote each section at 1.7 meters under 56' at 10 sections.
Pity you didn't get the photo's on the other side!

[trevor perry]

It just doesn't look like 72' more like 50'?

count the base sections these show up on photo with a white part on this is the gardner name , the pictures have 5 base sections on making it 62feet plus reach height so thats 66 or 67 feet, on the other side of building not photograhed i needed 6 base sections making it between 72 and 74 feet high, admittedly the picture doesnt look as high as it did in reality.

Gardiners quote each section at 1.7 meters under 56' at 10 sections.
Pity you didn't get the photo's on the other side!

there are 5 base sections and 6 smaller sections so thats 11 sections and as stated thats 62ft plus reach height so thats 66 to 67 ft and as said on other side i had another additional section making it 12 sections which with reach height is 72 ft. if you dont believe me come and measure it.

[trevor perry]

That pole is impresive as the bend is minimal to some I have seen.

How do you clean the top of the windows at that hight. Can you go from side to side ok?

i was stood pretty vertical so the bend isnt so bad the pole does bend at this height if stood further back but out of all big poles i have tried the gardner supalite is definately the most rigid.
 as for cleaning top of windows i do go side to side but does get a bit of getting used due to whip in pole.

[trevor perry]

how do you rinse at these heights i presume on the window does this effect the finished result?

  i do rinse with the brush on and it did used to be a problem but with the supalite dual trim flocked brush which i have used for about a year they have always dried as good as if rinsed with the brush off the glass. so i even rinse brush on at low levels now.

i have just read my posts it wont be long before someone accuses me of being a gardner salesman, Alex you will need my address so you can send me some commision

[karlosdaze]

It just doesn't look like 72' more like 50'?

count the base sections these show up on photo with a white part on this is the gardner name , the pictures have 5 base sections on making it 62feet plus reach height so thats 66 or 67 feet, on the other side of building not photograhed i needed 6 base sections making it between 72 and 74 feet high, admittedly the picture doesnt look as high as it did in reality.

Gardiners quote each section at 1.7 meters under 56' at 10 sections.
Pity you didn't get the photo's on the other side!

there are 5 base sections and 6 smaller sections so thats 11 sections and as stated thats 62ft plus reach height so thats 66 to 67 ft and as said on other side i had another additional section making it 12 sections which with reach height is 72 ft. if you dont believe me come and measure it.

Sorry,
I was a little thrown when the caption of the thread said "working at 72 foot with the SL" and yet you don't show the pictures. I do believe that the SL2 or any other pole can go to that height - but as I pointed out, wasn't 72 foot in the photo's you've shown. That aroused my curiosity in the first place - I thought either Gardiners poles were much shorter than they claim or the height given, wasn't right.